24fandomcom-20200223-history
Category talk:Characters portrayed by unknown performers
Shrinking the name: requesting help I'm very interested in renaming this category with a phrase that is shorter and as concise as possible. I need some help finding the right words. The shortest names I can think of that might actually make sense are * Category:Unknown actor roles * Category:Roles by unknown actors * Category:Played by unknown actors * Category:Unidentified performers * Category:Unidentified portrayers * Category:Unknown performer roles I most prefer the top two. Any other ideas? 22:08, November 2, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with the shortening of the name - all of these sound ok, I think "unknown performers" would be my personal choice. But doing this change brings up something else I had in mind: :I think I'm right in saying the point of this category is to group together all unknown performers with the view to identifying them. But realistically, two lines spoken off camera saying "yes sir" are never gonna be identified. I would vote for splitting the category into "unknown performers" and "unknown voice artists" or something similar, to differentiate those that appeared on camera, and the un-verifiable ones that only did voice work (ie, people with "voice only" on their appearances template). I dunno what anyone thinks of this--Acer4666 (talk) 00:42, November 3, 2011 (UTC) I'm not completely opposed to that idea, and while the distinction you're making there is clear to me, I don't think it's a necessary one to make either. If you can look at it this way: this is not a PNA category for stuff that needs "fixing". At the moment, there are 205 articles within it, and it most likely will increase in size over time. Which is just fine, as I see it! We probably will never get more than a handful of these "solved", and that's actually okay. So parsing out ones that seem more or less likely to be solved for whichever arbitrary criterion just divides the articles unnecessarily in my opinion. I'm hoping this makes sense, the way I am trying to explain it. Also, regarding the "unknown performers" suggestion (and similar ones like mine "Unidentified portrayers"): since this category goes on character pages, I'm second guessing ideas like that because "performer" does not refer to the article topic. "Roles by unknown actors" refers directly to the article topic and is clearest, I am beginning to think. 06:35, November 3, 2011 (UTC) I agree with Blue Rook for the idea of 1 category, instead of splitting in 2 categories. --Station7 06:52, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :I just find this category useful when I discover a performer who has appeared on 24 in an unknown role, to skirt through this list and see if any faces match up. It would be much more useful, if the many articles without pictures were in a different category. I don't see how it would be especially detrimental to split them, and that is a reason for splitting them. If that makes sense? If you think it would make the category system too messy, fair enough, but I think it would be a change for the better. :On the name - I agree, when put on character pages, it makes sense to have "roles by unknown actors". --Acer4666 (talk) 16:51, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :: Alright, but... what about the instances like Paul Coulander, and other people whose only visible parts are backs of heads, feet, left tibias, etc? To me, they're even less likely to be identified than some of the guys who were only ever heard. My gist is, visibility and voice-only isn't much of an indicator of "likelihood to be identified". :: (At this point, I'm pretty much fine with separating the categories. I'm just curious what your thoughts are on that last point beforehand. If we go for it, how do you feel about "voiced by unknown actors"? We could sub-categorize the voice-only categ inside the "roles by unknown actors" categ, but the lists would still remain unmixed.) 03:56, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah, I did realise about those, but I think in the main, the separation works. There are relatively few of the "no visible face" characters, and I think generally it's a fairly good indicator of likelihood of identification. If you think of it this way - not all of the visible characters are verifiably identifiable, true, but practically none of the voice only characters are. So in a way we're narrowing the playing field - granted we're not narrowing it all the way, but it's an improvement imo. :::I think the ideas about how to implement it as a subcategory are great, sounds all good to me. :::And another random thought in my head, but not yet sure which way I feel about it - would it be appropriate to include the Unnamed characters pages in this categ, for those which still feature unidentified roles? Kind of how some of the performers on pages like Pach, Graves, Jason (Day 4), have been identified, but not all of them?--Acer4666 (talk) 09:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC) What do you mean Acer? I don't really understand it! --Station7 10:52, November 7, 2011 (UTC) :Which part - the reasoning for splitting this into two categories, or the idea about adding this category to Unnamed security guards, Unnamed terrorists, Unnamed civilians etc.?--Acer4666 (talk) 12:25, November 7, 2011 (UTC) :: Meh, I dunno. Those are list pages, not character pages, so it wouldn't encompass all the entries, and it seems rather forced. Way I see it, we should keep categories as specifically-tailored as possible. Isn't it better if we put a note right inside the text of the category itself, inviting readers to browse through the various Unnamed characters pages for more? Stuffing all the unnamed pages themselves in there individually strikes me as a really messy outcome. (Also, it would be even weirder now that there are going to be 2 such categories.) :: On another note, I'm going to start adding the Voice Only guys to the new categ. That way, maybe after those are all culled, one of us might get someone with a bot to move the rest in 2 seconds. Sounds reasonable? 04:59, November 8, 2011 (UTC) :::All sounds good!--Acer4666 (talk) 10:34, November 8, 2011 (UTC)